| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Autymn D. C." |
| Date: |
20 Apr 2007 12:17:21 AM |
| Object: |
Complex Modulation |
applications?
phase modulation (PM(AM*FM)) -> actional modulation (AM(h) = h')
amplitude modulation (AM(v)) -> potential modulation (PM(u) = u')
frequency modulation (FM(f)) -> durential modulation (DM(t) = t')
Now broaden the bandwidth.
Hold stint constant, vary the span -> locential modulation (LM(s) =
s')
pattern modulation (PtM(AM*LM)) -> solutional modulation (SM(k) = k')
Hold work constant, vary the heft -> inertial modulation (IM(m) = m')
mobility/impedanse modulation (MM(AM/IM)) -> celerational modulation
(CM(c) = c')
=> gradial mode (g(u/s) = u') <- rasterisation (/s), polarisation (/
s')
=> vigial mode (v(u/t) = u') <- amplification (/t), movification (/t')
Eh, I'm too sleepy to finish the rest.
-Aut
.
|
|
| User: "sundar" |
|
| Title: Re: Complex Modulation |
25 Apr 2007 03:11:02 AM |
|
|
phase modulation (PM(AM*FM)) -> actional modulation (AM(h) = h')
amplitude modulation (AM(v)) -> potential modulation (PM(u) = u')
frequency modulation (FM(f)) -> durential modulation (DM(t) = t')
[snip]
Now, I'm a confused newbie (to communication systems). Do all these
things actually exist now or is this some strange kind of proposal of
a theory?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Complex Modulation |
25 Apr 2007 04:02:44 AM |
|
|
"sundar" <sundaryourfriend@gmail.com> wrote in message =
news:1177488662.514815.73450@t39g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
phase modulation (PM(AM*FM)) -> actional modulation (AM(h) =3D h')
amplitude modulation (AM(v)) -> potential modulation (PM(u) =3D u')
frequency modulation (FM(f)) -> durential modulation (DM(t) =3D t')
[snip]
Now, I'm a confused newbie (to communication systems). Do all these
things actually exist now or is this some strange kind of proposal of
a theory?
Radio and TV do exist. The only question is whether the above is an =
accurate=20
mathematical description or just word salad with bluff dressing.
Looking at "AM(v)", that appears to be nonsensical, he seems to be
saying amplitude modulation is a function of velocity. =20
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Herring" |
|
| Title: Re: Complex Modulation |
25 Apr 2007 04:05:42 AM |
|
|
In message <1177488662.514815.73450@t39g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
sundar <sundaryourfriend@gmail.com> writes
phase modulation (PM(AM*FM)) -> actional modulation (AM(h) = h')
amplitude modulation (AM(v)) -> potential modulation (PM(u) = u')
frequency modulation (FM(f)) -> durential modulation (DM(t) = t')
[snip]
Now, I'm a confused newbie (to communication systems). Do all these
things actually exist now or is this some strange kind of proposal of
a theory?
None of the above. It's wyrd salad.
--
Richard Herring
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Benj" |
|
| Title: Re: Complex Modulation |
28 Apr 2007 02:00:00 AM |
|
|
sundar wrote:
phase modulation (PM(AM*FM)) -> actional modulation (AM(h) = h')
amplitude modulation (AM(v)) -> potential modulation (PM(u) = u')
frequency modulation (FM(f)) -> durential modulation (DM(t) = t')
[snip]
Now, I'm a confused newbie (to communication systems). Do all these
things actually exist now or is this some strange kind of proposal of
a theory?
Um actually more along the lines of insane ramblings. Autymn
apparently is one of those who feel that intense posting to the
Internet is great therapy for bipolar illness.
However, the basic concept (if that is the right word) is that Autymn
started with known systems such as phase, frequency and amplitude
modulation (used in radio etc.) and then tried to generalize them. For
example, an amplitude modulation is a function of voltage (I presume
rather than velocity) which is hinted at by the generalization
"Potential modulation". Frequency modulation is generalized to a
modulation of duration (length of a cycle, where T = 1/f although
Autymn probably doesn't know the actual relationship between period
and frequency including her own) and then the "cute" word "durential"
modulation is made up. As for phase modulation, Autymn clearly has no
clue as to the intricacies of that so we won't even mention it.
From this she generalizes still further by free-association to
"invent" things like "heft" modulation. Yeah, it's all pretty lame,
but if it gets you off lithium for a while it's worth it!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Complex Modulation |
28 Apr 2007 07:07:54 PM |
|
|
On Apr 28, 12:00 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
sundar wrote:
phase modulation (PM(AM*FM)) -> actional modulation (AM(h) =3D h')
amplitude modulation (AM(v)) -> potential modulation (PM(u) =3D u')
frequency modulation (FM(f)) -> durential modulation (DM(t) =3D t')
[snip]
Now, I'm a confused newbie (to communication systems). Do all these
things actually exist now or is this some strange kind of proposal of
a theory?
Um actually more along the lines of insane ramblings. Autymn
apparently is one of those who feel that intense posting to the
Internet is great therapy for bipolar illness.
Prove it, *****. I am neither manic nor depressive. I am angry
and witful all the way.
However, the basic concept (if that is the right word) is that Autymn
started with known systems such as phase, frequency and amplitude
modulation (used in radio etc.) and then tried to generalize them. For
example, an amplitude modulation is a function of voltage (I presume
rather than velocity) which is hinted at by the generalization
"Potential modulation". Frequency modulation is generalized to a
At least you can read and think, unlike cretin Androcles.
modulation of duration (length of a cycle, where T =3D 1/f although
Autymn probably doesn't know the actual relationship between period
and frequency including her own) and then the "cute" word "durential"
How don't I?
modulation is made up. As for phase modulation, Autymn clearly has no
All words are maed up at some time or another. At least I know which
speakka each word belongs tom, and don't ugily patch Hell=E8nic words
with Latin words, or Latin words with English words like dumb-*****
scientists do.
clue as to the intricacies of that so we won't even mention it.
How is that?
From this she generalizes still further by free-association to
"invent" things like "heft" modulation. Yeah, it's all pretty lame,
but if it gets you off lithium for a while it's worth it!
How is it lame? You chide out of jealosy.
-Aut
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Complex Modulation |
28 Apr 2007 07:12:01 PM |
|
|
In article <1177805274.935543.156090@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
"Autymn D. C." <lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
All words are maed up at some time or another. At least I know which
speakka each word belongs tom, and don't ugily patch Hellènic words
with Latin words, or Latin words with English words like dumb-*****
scientists do.
No, you just contrafibulate an existing mestial brentiological antaholist.
--
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.
COOSN-174-07-82116: alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken
of the saucerhead high command).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Benj" |
|
| Title: Re: Complex Modulation |
21 Apr 2007 11:57:30 AM |
|
|
Autymn D. C. wrote:
applications?
phase modulation (PM(AM*FM)) -> actional modulation (AM(h) = h')
amplitude modulation (AM(v)) -> potential modulation (PM(u) = u')
frequency modulation (FM(f)) -> durential modulation (DM(t) = t')
Now broaden the bandwidth.
Hold stint constant, vary the span -> locential modulation (LM(s) =
s')
pattern modulation (PtM(AM*LM)) -> solutional modulation (SM(k) = k')
Hold work constant, vary the heft -> inertial modulation (IM(m) = m')
mobility/impedanse modulation (MM(AM/IM)) -> celerational modulation
(CM(c) = c')
=> gradial mode (g(u/s) = u') <- rasterisation (/s), polarisation (/
s')
=> vigial mode (v(u/t) = u') <- amplification (/t), movification (/t')
Eh, I'm too sleepy to finish the rest.
Eh, you are too sleepy to speak English! I love the way you constantly
correct everyones punctuation as if it were of the utmost importance
and still can't spell impede-dance correctly!
By the way, I love Inertial modulation! In the absence of impulse it
creates a force modulation with no motion of the modulated mass!
Interesting. Heftential modulational virtual displacementization!
Benj
(Who assumes Aut had to quit because he got the munchies)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Complex Modulation |
21 Apr 2007 03:40:05 PM |
|
|
On Apr 21, 9:57 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
Eh, you are too sleepy to speak English! I love the way you constantly
correct everyones punctuation as if it were of the utmost importance
and still can't spell impede-dance correctly!
impedanse is Latin, not English.
http://google.com/groups?q=staffr+seo
By the way, I love Inertial modulation! In the absence of impulse it
creates a force modulation with no motion of the modulated mass!
Interesting. Heftential modulational virtual displacementization!
F = p' = m/t/t s + m/t s/t + m s/t/t
Benj
(Who assumes Aut had to quit because he got the munchies)
I'm not a he, shitwit.
-Aut
.
|
|
|
| User: "Benj" |
|
| Title: Re: Complex Modulation |
23 Apr 2007 01:51:31 AM |
|
|
Autymn D. C. wrote:
I'm not a he, shitwit.
"it", "he" or "she" it's all irrelevant!
Benj
(Who loves womyn but they don't love him...)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Fields" |
|
| Title: Re: Complex Modulation |
22 Apr 2007 09:57:49 AM |
|
|
On 21 Apr 2007 13:40:05 -0700, "Autymn D. C."
<lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Apr 21, 9:57 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
Eh, you are too sleepy to speak English! I love the way you constantly
correct everyones punctuation as if it were of the utmost importance
and still can't spell impede-dance correctly!
impedanse is Latin, not English.
---
Whatever it is, you're posting in English and the correct term is
'impedance'.
---
http://google.com/groups?q=staffr+seo
By the way, I love Inertial modulation! In the absence of impulse it
creates a force modulation with no motion of the modulated mass!
Interesting. Heftential modulational virtual displacementization!
F = p' = m/t/t s + m/t s/t + m s/t/t
Benj
(Who assumes Aut had to quit because he got the munchies)
I'm not a he, shitwit.
---
You're a nasty little ***** then, yes?
--
JF
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Complex Modulation |
22 Apr 2007 04:47:58 PM |
|
|
John Fields wrote:
On 21 Apr 2007 13:40:05 -0700, "Autymn D. C."
<lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Apr 21, 9:57 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
Eh, you are too sleepy to speak English! I love the way you constantly
correct everyones punctuation as if it were of the utmost importance
and still can't spell impede-dance correctly!
impedanse is Latin, not English.
---
Whatever it is, you're posting in English and the correct term is
'impedance'.
---
I'm a'posting in many speakkas. "impedance" is not correct in any.
http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+%22c%22+%22s%22+%22k%22+Francish
http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+Francish+OR+Norman+OR+Hibiru
http://google.com/groups?q=don't-trust-folks-whose-name
I'm not a he, shitwit.
---
You're a nasty little ***** then, yes?
I deal out what they bearn. If they are nastily dolty, I show them.
-Aut
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Complex Modulation |
22 Apr 2007 05:12:06 PM |
|
|
In article <1177278478.355945.189250@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
"Autymn D. C." <lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I'm a'posting in many speakkas. "impedance" is not correct in any.
http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+%22c%22+%22s%22+%22k%22+Francish
http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+Francish+OR+Norman+OR+Hibiru
http://google.com/groups?q=don't-trust-folks-whose-name
I'm not a he, shitwit.
---
You're a nasty little ***** then, yes?
I deal out what they bearn. If they are nastily dolty, I show them.
The only speakka you're posting in is BS.
--
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.
COOSN-174-07-82116: alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken
of the saucerhead high command).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Fields" |
|
| Title: Re: Complex Modulation |
22 Apr 2007 04:58:55 PM |
|
|
On 22 Apr 2007 14:47:58 -0700, "Autymn D. C."
<lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On 21 Apr 2007 13:40:05 -0700, "Autymn D. C."
<lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Apr 21, 9:57 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
Eh, you are too sleepy to speak English! I love the way you constantly
correct everyones punctuation as if it were of the utmost importance
and still can't spell impede-dance correctly!
impedanse is Latin, not English.
---
Whatever it is, you're posting in English and the correct term is
'impedance'.
---
I'm a'posting in many speakkas. "impedance" is not correct in any.
http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+%22c%22+%22s%22+%22k%22+Francish
http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+Francish+OR+Norman+OR+Hibiru
http://google.com/groups?q=don't-trust-folks-whose-name
I'm not a he, shitwit.
---
You're a nasty little ***** then, yes?
I deal out what they bearn. If they are nastily dolty, I show them.
---
Bearn?
Dolty?
Those are words I'm not familiar with and aren't in my Webster's
College Dictionary.
Can you say what they mean?
--
JF
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Fields" |
|
| Title: Re: Complex Modulation |
22 Apr 2007 05:20:17 PM |
|
|
On 22 Apr 2007 14:47:58 -0700, "Autymn D. C."
<lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On 21 Apr 2007 13:40:05 -0700, "Autymn D. C."
<lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Apr 21, 9:57 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
Eh, you are too sleepy to speak English! I love the way you constantly
correct everyones punctuation as if it were of the utmost importance
and still can't spell impede-dance correctly!
impedanse is Latin, not English.
---
Whatever it is, you're posting in English and the correct term is
'impedance'.
---
I'm a'posting in many speakkas. "impedance" is not correct in any.
---
But you're posting in English text, not phonics, and in English text
'impedanse' is a nonsense word.
--
JF
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Complex Modulation |
22 Apr 2007 07:08:31 PM |
|
|
John Fields wrote:
On 22 Apr 2007 14:47:58 -0700, "Autymn D. C."
<lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I'm a'posting in many speakkas. "impedance" is not correct in any.
---
But you're posting in English text, not phonics, and in English text
'impedanse' is a nonsense word.
I said nothing about f=F2nics. English has nothing to do with a Latin
word.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Fields" |
|
| Title: Re: Complex Modulation |
23 Apr 2007 12:52:31 PM |
|
|
On 22 Apr 2007 17:08:31 -0700, "Autymn D. C."
<lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On 22 Apr 2007 14:47:58 -0700, "Autymn D. C."
<lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I'm a'posting in many speakkas. "impedance" is not correct in any.
---
But you're posting in English text, not phonics, and in English text
'impedanse' is a nonsense word.
I said nothing about fònics. English has nothing to do with a Latin
word.
---
You post as though you think you're talking.
You're not, and your efforts to punctuate text in a way that makes
you think the text will "sound right" when it's read do nothing but
confuse your audience and cause antagonism.
--
JF
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Complex Modulation |
23 Apr 2007 02:17:02 PM |
|
|
On Apr 23, 11:23 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 22 Apr 2007 17:08:31 -0700, "Autymn D. C."
I said nothing about f=F2nics. English has nothing to do with a Latin
word.
You post as though you think you're talking.
Wrong, I think I'm a'writing.
You're not, and your efforts to punctuate text in a way that makes
you think the text will "sound right" when it's read do nothing but
confuse your audience and cause antagonism.
I do not; I spell text as it's spellen. This has nothing to do with
sound.
http://google.com/groups?q=3Dstaffrs+alfa+v=E8ta
-Aut
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Fields" |
|
| Title: Re: Complex Modulation |
23 Apr 2007 02:45:26 PM |
|
|
On 23 Apr 2007 12:17:02 -0700, "Autymn D. C."
<lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Apr 23, 11:23 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 22 Apr 2007 17:08:31 -0700, "Autymn D. C."
I said nothing about fònics. English has nothing to do with a Latin
word.
You post as though you think you're talking.
Wrong, I think I'm a'writing.
You're not, and your efforts to punctuate text in a way that makes
you think the text will "sound right" when it's read do nothing but
confuse your audience and cause antagonism.
I do not; I spell text as it's spellen. This has nothing to do with
sound.
---
Well, then, if you're as fully in control of your faculties as you
seem to be saying you are, you're merely an annoying twat.
--
JF
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Complex Modulation |
22 Apr 2007 08:01:04 PM |
|
|
On Apr 22, 5:08 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On 22 Apr 2007 14:47:58 -0700, "Autymn D. C."
<lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I'm a'posting in many speakkas. "impedance" is not correct in any.
---
But you're posting in English text, not phonics, and in English text
'impedanse' is a nonsense word.
I said nothing about f=F2nics. English has nothing to do with a Latin
word.
Have you noticed zero physics content in this thread due to your
inability/unwillingness to utilize the common language?
Or do you even care about that? It certainly appears that your sole
aim is to provoke arguments over trivialities.
Mark L. Fergerson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Complex Modulation |
23 Apr 2007 01:21:17 PM |
|
|
On Apr 22, 6:01 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
Have you noticed zero physics content in this thread due to your
inability/unwillingness to utilize the common language?
Or do you even care about that? It certainly appears that your sole
aim is to provoke arguments over trivialities.
I didn't start that; Gisse, Fields, and Cain did.
The common scientific language is Latin. See the first post.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Myers" |
|
| Title: Re: Complex Modulation |
23 Apr 2007 02:25:12 PM |
|
|
"Autymn D. C." <lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1177352477.483029.94170@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
I didn't start that; Gisse, Fields, and Cain did.
The common scientific language is Latin. See the first post.
I think you will find that there is very, VERY little Latin used
in electronics, or even in physics in general for that matter.
Bob M.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Fields" |
|
| Title: Re: Complex Modulation |
23 Apr 2007 02:11:16 PM |
|
|
On 23 Apr 2007 11:21:17 -0700, "Autymn D. C."
<lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Apr 22, 6:01 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
Have you noticed zero physics content in this thread due to your
inability/unwillingness to utilize the common language?
Or do you even care about that? It certainly appears that your sole
aim is to provoke arguments over trivialities.
I didn't start that; Gisse, Fields, and Cain did.
The common scientific language is Latin. See the first post.
---
You're wrong.
The language of science is English,
http://www.worldstudy.gov/featurearticles/crawford.html
though it seems that much of what you write is just gibberish.
--
JF
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Complex Modulation |
23 Apr 2007 09:47:01 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com>
wrote
on Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:11:16 -0500
<1n0q23h1o5a4ip53tsgtft9ldt22gf3fsn@4ax.com>:
On 23 Apr 2007 11:21:17 -0700, "Autymn D. C."
<lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Apr 22, 6:01 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
Have you noticed zero physics content in this thread due to your
inability/unwillingness to utilize the common language?
Or do you even care about that? It certainly appears that your sole
aim is to provoke arguments over trivialities.
I didn't start that; Gisse, Fields, and Cain did.
The common scientific language is Latin. See the first post.
---
You're wrong.
The language of science is English,
http://www.worldstudy.gov/featurearticles/crawford.html
though it seems that much of what you write is just gibberish.
Not quite. The historical languages are English, French, German, and to
some extent Latin. However, I for one suspect Latin is dying (which is
a bit of a pity, but oh well) and English is probably mutating.
--
#191,
Linux. Because it's there and it works.
Windows. It's there, but does it work?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Complex Modulation |
23 Apr 2007 03:20:06 PM |
|
|
On Apr 23, 11:21 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Apr 22, 6:01 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
Have you noticed zero physics content in this thread due to your
inability/unwillingness to utilize the common language?
Or do you even care about that? It certainly appears that your sole
aim is to provoke arguments over trivialities.
I didn't start that; Gisse, Fields, and Cain did.
You participate willingly. Flames =/= physics.
The common scientific language is Latin. See the first post.
Not for a very long time. What's been misnamed "American English"
is.
When you post using terminology _nobody_ else uses you look like
just another usenet kook. Why are you surprised to be treated like
one?
Mark L. Fergerson
PS See, you _can_ use it. ;>)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Complex Modulation |
23 Apr 2007 01:23:06 PM |
|
|
On Apr 22, 6:01 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
Have you noticed zero physics content in this thread due to your
inability/unwillingness to utilize the common language?
Or do you even care about that? It certainly appears that your sole
aim is to provoke arguments over trivialities.
I didn't start that; Gisse, Fields, and Cain did.
The common scientific language is Latin. See the first post.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: Complex Modulation |
22 Apr 2007 02:03:15 PM |
|
|
John Fields wrote:
You're a nasty little ***** then, yes?
I doubt that she is little.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Complex Modulation |
22 Apr 2007 04:50:01 PM |
|
|
Bob Cain wrote:
John Fields wrote:
You're a nasty little ***** then, yes?
I doubt that she is little.
Look at the link in my GG profile for my heiht and weiht.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: Complex Modulation |
22 Apr 2007 06:32:36 PM |
|
|
Autymn D. C. wrote:
Bob Cain wrote:
John Fields wrote:
You're a nasty little ***** then, yes?
I doubt that she is little.
Look at the link in my GG profile for my heiht and weiht.
What's a GG profile? What's heigt? What's weiht?
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Fields" |
|
| Title: Re: Complex Modulation |
22 Apr 2007 05:06:07 PM |
|
|
On 22 Apr 2007 14:50:01 -0700, "Autymn D. C."
<lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Bob Cain wrote:
John Fields wrote:
You're a nasty little ***** then, yes?
I doubt that she is little.
Look at the link in my GG profile for my heiht and weiht.
---
Those two 'g's' need to be inserted into 'heiht' and 'weiht' like
so: 'height','weight'.
I notice your name in your email addy is 'lysdexia'. Are you
dyslexic?
--
JF
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Complex Modulation |
22 Apr 2007 08:45:09 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com>
wrote
on Sun, 22 Apr 2007 17:06:07 -0500
<gnmn23987sc796skihvdm48f2qgg1u1e4b@4ax.com>:
On 22 Apr 2007 14:50:01 -0700, "Autymn D. C."
<lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Bob Cain wrote:
John Fields wrote:
You're a nasty little ***** then, yes?
I doubt that she is little.
Look at the link in my GG profile for my heiht and weiht.
---
Those two 'g's' need to be inserted into 'heiht' and 'weiht' like
so: 'height','weight'.
Depends on the context. Is 'heiht' an English word, an arbitrary token,
a representation of a mathematical formula? Could be all three.
I'll have to reread Beowulf; turns out my copy, however, has
been translated into the modern English form.
It turns out it's also the name of a company somewhere in
the Middle East, probably Saudi Arabia, specializing in
electrical items.
"Weiht" is the name of a viewing profile on Channel NewsAsia. I'm
getting no clearer indications.
In both cases Google suggested the modern English words.
http://dictionary.reference.com gives the following etymologies from
http://www.etymonline.com/:
height
O.E. hiehþu, Anglian hehþo "highest part or point, summit," from
root of heah "high" + -itha Gmc. abstract noun suffix (cf. O.N. hæð,
O.H.G. hohida, Goth. hauhiþa "height"). The modern pronunciation
with -t not established till 18c., and heighth is still colloquial.
weight
O.E. gewiht, from P.Gmc. *(ga)wekhtiz, *(ga)wekhtjan (cf. O.N. vætt,
O.Fris. wicht, M.Du. gewicht, Ger. Gewicht), from *weg- (see weigh).
The verb meaning "to load with weight" is attested from 1747; sense
in statistics is recorded from 1901. To lose weight "get thinner" is
recorded from 1961. Weight Watcher as a trademark name dates from
1960. To pull one's weight (1921) is from rowing. Weighty
"important, serious, grave" is from 1489.
I notice your name in your email addy is 'lysdexia'. Are you
dyslexic?
--
#191,
Q: "Why is my computer doing that?"
A: "Don't do that and you'll be fine."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
